Tuesday, 7 June 2011

GMB Union doesn't really represent the workers.

A recent Employmant Tribunal saw a claimant being awarded +35K after being unfairly dismissed.
This was after a long battle and was a good decision by The Court.
This long battle was not helped by the Claimant's union trying to put the mockers on the whole shebang.
First, they said they would represent the claimant.
Then they said No.
Then they said they would represent him if they thought there was a chance of winning.
Then they said No.
It was obvious to everyone that the claim was with merit.
However, the GMB seems to have been embedded with the Council in this matter.

A letter was sent to GMB headquarters reminding them of their duty to protect workers.
Passed down into the long grass.

This went to the GMB leadership : (one name has been changed)

5th June 2010

Re : Fred Bloggs v. Argyll and Bute Council.

Dear Mr Donaldson,

The union has now informed me that I will not be represented by Pauline Paxton in my Employment Tribunal case against Argyll and Bute Council.

According to the GMB website, 'GMB is a campaigning trade union focused on protecting GMB members in their workplaces …..'.

However, that does not seem to be the case in this instance.

I was sacked for my work in protecting the rights of the workers while I was on sick leave and without any chance of rebutting the allegation against me.
I was sacked as a result of my union activities yet the union has refused to represent me in my Employment Tribunal case.
This is surprising considering that the only evidence offered by the employer was :

1) an anonymous witness statement by someone who was offered inducements to perjure himself
2) a series of conversations covertly taped by the Council's representative.

Such an attack on union rights using such methods would have been expected to have been of some interest to the union lest it become the norm.
Apparently not.
The union lawyers have said they can only act in cases which they think have a 51% chance of success.
However, Pauline Paxton thinks my case has a very strong chance of success bearing in mind that the Council evidence, from an 'anonymous witness', was comprehensively rebutted by The Sun newspaper reporter who appeared as a witness for me.

In the past, the union was quite happy to defend the clearly indefensible with respect to 'Bollinger Bob' of whom The Independent said :

'Robert Parker was forced to resign as leader of the GMB general union in Scotland in March last year after four complaints of bullying and harassment were lodged against him at employment tribunals by his own staff. All were settled with the union's funds taking a hammering. The biggest payout, of £300,000, was made to Margaret McAvoy, Parker's former PA, who claimed he had sexually harassed her.'

Of course, he was the Regional Secretary and well worth nearly two million pounds in the process.

The full time official, Pauline Paxton, seemed very keen to represent both Craig Lauffer and myself in our cases. However, the union stopped her representing him in his tribunal and have now stopped her from representing me in my tribunal.
That is truly scandalous given the context of us having been sacked for working to ensure that workers have a safe workplace.

I would ask you to re-consider the decision not to allow me union representation at my tribunal.

Yours faithfully Fred Bloggs.

Cc Paul Kenney, GMB General Secretary

Pauline Paxton

********************

He won his case.
Simple.
The Union didn't help.
They still took his Union dues.

seems the unions have it all their own way and in bed with the employers . GGC health board have 5 cases pending where unison has not represented their members properly and even one where the full time rep failed to take action even though he agreed the senior managers were liars, and we are told to raise concern int eh health board with unions or managers, how can you when you cant split them with a sheaf of paper they are so close. If you cant wear two hats don't be a union rep. The grass roots reps have no chance when their full time officials are looking for election rather than representing their members.

My brother in law was a shop Stewart for the gmb union he has a tribunal in 3 weeks. He was told yesterday thet his union the gmb will not fund his case because he has not got a 100% cance of winning .This case has now been in the process for almost a year and 3 weeks before the date this happens. There is six other people involved in this case including myself the evidence he has is overwhelming the two companies have none. This union does not back up its members

My brother in law was a shop Stewart for the gmb union he has a tribunal in 3 weeks. He was told yesterday thet his union the gmb will not fund his case because he has not got a 100% cance of winning .This case has now been in the process for almost a year and 3 weeks before the date this happens. There is six other people involved in this case including myself the evidence he has is overwhelming the two companies have none. This union does not back up its members

My brother inlaw has a tribunal in 3 weeks he was a shop Stewart for the gmb union. He was called the the union solicitor's yesterday and was told that the union is not going to fund the case. So far the case has been going on for nearly a year, the evidence he has is overwhelming. The two companies have little or no evidence. The reason from the union was that the case was not 100% winnable.

Followers

About Me

I am just a guy who thinks there must be a better way to do things.
If I tell you any more I have to keeeeel you.
Needless to say, the views expressed here may at times be libelous, scurrilous and in the worst possible taste despite my disclaimer.